Russia Working on Soyuz Replacement

Buran writes "The Associated Press is reporting that RKK Energia is starting design work on a new manned spacecraft able to carry a crew of six (or more) to the International Space Station. The vehicle may have a reusable crew module (current Soyuz TMA and Progress vehicles are disposable) and would theoretically finally allow ISS crew size to increase, as the current limiting factor is the capacity of the Soyuz spacecraft, designed in the early 1960s for manned lunar flights. (While Soyuz never flew to the Moon, its Zond circumlunar variant did so several times, and Soyuz and Progress craft have been resupplying various space stations for over three decades.) It will be interesting to see how this develops, as at present ISS crews spend more time maintaining the station than they do performing research, due to the fact that the station wasn't designed to operate with a crew as small as two or three people."

Comments

Cool, but where's the money?

[Chairboy]

The RSA is starved for cash, this is probably a fantasy until money appears. Based on their history, I would guess that this is a balloon they are floating to try and get parties with deeper pockets (eg, NASA, maybe the ESA) to offer the development funding.

Of interest, NASA had a similar idea in the 1960s with their 'Big Gemini' program and the 'Apollo Rescue CSM' program. It's very feasible, and the Soyuz is a solid design.

Re:I bet they do it, too...

[kitzilla]

Yeah, it'll be a great bird. Nothing fancy, robust, and big. Based on proven design. You have to think this might end up being a moon vehicle, too.

As far as paying for it: the Russians desperately need a symbol of national pride. They'll find a way to get this flying.

Money (what we have and what we pretend to have)

[p-adically yours]

``There is no explanation whatsoever where the money needed to implement the declared program would come from,'' Koptev said.

And where are the Russians getting the money, anyway? Last I checked, Russian government-funded things are ill-funded and poorly thrown together which would either indicate lack of funds, mismanagement, or both. I vote both.

At the same time, he reaffirmed his skepticism about Bush's space plan, saying that the U.S. administration would have trouble raising resources for the planned missions.

Really, when has this ever stopped us before?

I wonder what the equivalent of global bankruptcy would be...

(to the tune of "We'd make great pets"...)

Re:The problem with the ISS

[bm_luethke]

"A moon base or space elevator would be infinitely more useful than a space station."

Well, I agree 100% there. Unfortunatly this is like saying "zero emmesion unlimited power is much more useful than what we now use".

I am sure that more than just NASA would LOVE to have said elevator. I am also sure they would like a permament moon base. Those are currently either impossible or the cost is so prohibitive to be impossible. Though I am betting that a moon base is MUCH more expensive than the ISS as you have many more variables and more more gravity to overcome, though it is probably more usefull.

As is, if a permament space platform is wanted (not needed as it is currently not - and yes I agree with the funding and think it ought to be raised - I'm not knocking space exploration in that statement) then the ISS is probably the best mix of possibility and funding. But the best may not be a easily workable solution.

Re:I bet they do it, too...

[d_strand]

So what? Lots of people on /. seem to think that russia is still communist... Well they aren't!

Russia today is as ultra capitalist as you can get (i.e the rich/powerful are in complete control). Russia today is a weird maffia-hybrid country. Their government is so corrupt they'd make Al Capone proud and the various mafia organizations does whatever they want while the people suffer (as usual). Russia today is worse than italy was at its worst mafia heydays a generation ago.

So maybe they'll make a good spaceship but it wont be because they're communists, it'll be because they have little resources and have to make it as cheap as possible (i.e proven, reliable and of-the-shelf technology)

Re:The problem with the ISS

[Docrates]

The ISS WAS a good idea, provided that everything NASA was putting on Press Releases at the time was true: That they had a Shuttle that actually worked like a shuttle, that there were plenty of missons planned that would benefit from the "pit stop" (they even were considering adding refuling capabilities), that the ISS wouldn't be a destination, but a waypoint, etc...

Of course, you add international and domestic politics to the formula and you get the mess we have today: They had to settle for "the ISS destination", they added low imapct, easily replaceable scientific work to justify it, they moved the orbit to where it was mostly useless for anything else to accomodate the Russians (whom are worthy of admiration), and now that we need that "pit stop" to comply with the CAIB and save the Hubble, it won't do.

Will a moon base fare any better? I don't know. I couldn't have possibly predited the mess the ISS turned out to be when the first idea for "Freedom" came along.

The space elevator, now THAT would be a breakthrough.

Re:Money (what we have and what we pretend to have

[torpor]

Classic Propaganda:

Last I checked, Russian government-funded things are ill-funded and poorly thrown together which would either indicate lack of funds, mismanagement, or both.

No more, or less so, than any other major government in control of a vast pool of resources. The Russians, for example, are no different in this regard than, say... The United States Government.

You're a victim of propaganda. Fix that.

Lets just assume that what you're saying is true... in which case, the Russians are even more Powerful and Mighty than we imagine, since they're the ones who - in spite of such 'hardships' - are still able to re-supply ISS, still able to make launches, and still running a viable space program in spite of the cost overruns and budget difficulties.

You can't say that as easily about the US. You can say it, but not easily ...

Russians make the best rockets

[csoto]

The latest Atlast/Delta rocket motors by Lockheed-Martin were, in fact, designed by Energia. They are far more efficient (read: bigger payloads or more fuel capacity) than what we were using, and they are beasts. Tough and indestructible.

We will not explore the solar system without these brilliant people. "Going it alone" is stupid and shortsighted. But, then again, so are politicians...